The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

[Robert W]

which is "peanuts" and is subject to wild fluctuations as these go off...

arctic underwater volcanoes - Google Search

Earth ice

90% on land mass Antarctica
7% on land mass Greenland
0.3% on Ellesmere Island


The rest, all 2.7%, is on mountains, small islands within 600 miles of a pole, and sea ice...

Sea ice is peanuts...

Fair explanation. It was established long ago that the Arctic once was tropical and they found evidence of enormous mosquitos that once lived there.

 

[EMH]

Indeed that is accurate.

And it actually is the correct explanation for this....

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Google Search

and Chris Wray and Garland know that. That is also why Trump was certain it was a fraud. But Trump appointed Sessions and Wray, and hence the FBI fraud prosecution still sits IN THE CLOSET where homO and Holder put it in 2012....

 

[EMH]

Fair explanation. It was established long ago that the Arctic once was tropical and they found evidence of enormous mosquitos that once lived there.

Wow wow wow careful....

LAND MOVES.

Neither the Arctic or the Antarctic have ever been tropical in the past 2 billion + years. Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils on it, because it wasn't on the South Pole 70 million years ago. What they call "Milankovich Cycles" are all bullshit that re-wrote climate history. homO gave the FBI case to the warmers in 2012 and that's what they came up with to cover up the truth. Milankovich aka McBullshit has been destroyed here on both poles...

Greenland went from forest to ice age because it is moving NW. The other side of that fault is Europe moving SE and why their glaciers are melting.

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Robert W]

Wow wow wow careful....

LAND MOVES.

Neither the Arctic or the Antarctic have ever been tropical in the past 2 billion + years. Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils on it, because it wasn't on the South Pole 70 million years ago. What they call "Milankovich Cycles" are all bullshit that re-wrote climate history. homO gave the FBI case to the warmers in 2012 and that's what they came up with to cover up the truth. Milankovich aka McBullshit has been destroyed here on both poles...

Greenland went from forest to ice age because it is moving NW. The other side of that fault is Europe moving SE and why their glaciers are melting.

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

Well, it was reported that what now is Arctic once was subtropical.

Scientists identified the interval through specific algae, which lived only in subtropical conditions. The algae fossils reveal that the Arctic ocean once were much warmer-around 20°C (68F), similar to the waters around New York in August (NOOA) compared with today's freezing temperatures that average -1.5°C.Sep 6, 2004

Subtropical Arctic - EurekAlert!​

EurekAlert!
https://www.eurekalert.org › pub_releases › sprs-sa090604








Not to side track us all, but check out this scientific report.
The gist is that CO2 does not drive warmer climate, that temperature causes climate.
That a function of temperature increasing is that Carbon Dioxide follows this and later also increases.

Causality and climate

Guest post by Antonis Christofides, Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Christian Onof and Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz On the chicken-and-egg problem of CO2 and temperature.

judithcurry.com

 

[Dagosa]

What gives you the right to feature Dennis photograph?

None of your fking business.

 

[Dagosa]

Greenland has been DUG OUT just like AA and the Great Lakes and the southern tip of South America. Ice age glaciers do that...

Greenland is a "new" continent specific ice age in the past two million years...

Green at the northern most part 2 million years ago, island/continent was completely green except for mountains

Discovery of 2-million-year-old DNA in Greenland reveals new details about ancient life

Scientists working in Greenland identified the oldest samples of DNA ever found on earth. By analyzing the two-million year old genetic material, they’ve revealed how northern Greenland was once a wildly different environment than the cold, polar region it is today. Project researcher Eske...

www.pbs.org

450k-800k years ago middle of Greenland went from forest to ice age as glaciers moved south...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

Greenland was once carpeted in lush forests, a new study shows.

www.livescience.com

Vikings settled Greenland and called it GREENland because the southern tip was still green but is now buried under 600 years of ice layers.


When land gets to 600 miles of a pole, the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt in the "summer" and starts to stack. That is the start of an "ice age" which is a continent specific issue that has a global effect. 99% of Earth climate change is where land is relative to the poles...

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

Hey bozo. You finally get it….snow ice.

 

[Dagosa]

But the genuine warming effect is at pretty much ground level and not far up in the sky.

And your point is what ? Heat doesn’t rise and add energy to storms which are directly related to increased ocean temps, the sea ice and ground water are not affected because they are thousands of feet in the air.

Maybe you’d like to tell all these climate research facilities they are FOS.

List of environmental research institutes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Robert W]

And your point is what ? Heat doesn’t rise and add energy to storms which are directly related to increased ocean temps, the sea ice and ground water are not affected because they are thousands of feet in the air.

Maybe you’d like to tell all these climate research facilities they are FOS.

List of environmental research institutes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again, and sorry if you replied and I missed it, why are you using the Avatar of Dennis Eckersley?

As to your claims. Sure heat rises. Sure storms gain energy from heat. I was not discussing that. I mentioned Carbon Dioxide sinks towards the earth and oceans. And it is heavier than air. Write it down.

There has been published papers talking about what happens due to more CO2. That temperatures by rising cause CO2 to also rise. Makes sense now?

 

[Robert W]

None of your fking business.

Though Dennis and I came from the same town, and I was close friends to a friend of his, I sure wish you would ask him first. Dennis is one of our hero pitchers and you do not act like he does.

 

[Dagosa]

And it is heavier than air.

CO2 IS “air”, it’s an atmospheric gas. It’s not a ” surface dweller”:It doesn’t break up till 80 kilometers from the earths surface.

You Asked: How Does Carbon Dioxide Get So High Up Into the Atmosphere?

If CO2 is heavier than oxygen, why doesn’t it stay near the ground? The short answer: Earth’s atmosphere isn’t like a sealed bottle of wine.

news.climate.columbia.edu

 

[Dagosa]

I sure wish you would ask him first.

ha ha...get a life. Hold your breath.

 

[Dagosa]

Fair explanation. It was established long ago that the Arctic once was tropical and they found evidence of enormous mosquitos that once lived there.

And modern man was NOT around at the time. Those enormous mosquitos would make short work of most of us….maybe you have thick skin…It’s called, evolution.

 

[Dagosa]

And it actually is the correct explanation for this....

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Google Search

and Chris Wray and Garland know that. That is also why Trump was certain it was a fraud. But Trump appointed Sessions and Wray, and hence the FBI fraud prosecution still sits IN THE CLOSET where homO and Holder put it in 2012....

You trying to be funny or just getting attention. Any nit wit who can read knows why higher concentrations of CO2 can cause increases in SNOW ICE . Look it up, then apologizes for wasting everyone’s time.

 

[Robert W]

And modern man was NOT around at the time. Those enormous mosquitos would make short work of most of us….maybe you have thick skin…It’s called, evolution.

So they evolved to very small insects? Actually those found in the Arctic were indeed large insects.

 

[Robert W]

You trying to be funny or just getting attention. Any nit wit who can read knows why higher concentrations of CO2 can cause increases in SNOW ICE . Look it up, then apologizes for wasting everyone’s time.

So you accept that CO2 has a chilling effect and is not the cause of higher temperatures.

 

[Dagosa]

So they evolved to very small insects? Actually those found in the Arctic were indeed large insects.

And modern man was not around. It’s not germane to any discussion of global warming occurring at a higher rate than at any time MODERN MAN HAS BEEN ON EARTH.

 

[Dagosa]

So you accept that CO2 has a chilling effect and is not the cause of higher temperatures.

Thats hilarious. You really aren’t a serious consumer of real science. Just go to a real climate science website and read how CO2 plays a role in increased global warming RATES.

 

[Robert W]

CO2 IS “air”, it’s an atmospheric gas. It’s not a ” surface dweller”:It doesn’t break up till 80 kilometers from the earths surface.

You Asked: How Does Carbon Dioxide Get So High Up Into the Atmosphere?

If CO2 is heavier than oxygen, why doesn’t it stay near the ground? The short answer: Earth’s atmosphere isn’t like a sealed bottle of wine.

news.climate.columbia.edu

Well, living beings, man, dogs, other animals as well, do emit CO2 as they breathe. The major issue is causation. Research has shown now that Temperature rises causes more CO2 to rise.
Anyway, the tiny amount of CO2 at 30,000 feet is really not a problem.

Causality and climate

Guest post by Antonis Christofides, Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Christian Onof and Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz On the chicken-and-egg problem of CO2 and temperature.

judithcurry.com

Investigating potential causes​

So here is the question: given two processes, how can we determine if one is a potential cause of the other? We deal with this question in two papers we published last year in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (PRSA): Revisiting causality using stochastics: 1. Theory (preprint); 2. Applications (preprint). We reviewed existing theories of causation, notably probabilistic theories, and found that all of them have considerable limitations.

For example, Granger’s theory and statistical test have already been known to be identifying correlation (for making predictions), not causation, despite the popular term “Granger causality”. What is more, they ignore the fact that processes exhibit dependence in time. Hence, formally testing hypotheses in geophysics by such tests can be inaccurate by orders of magnitude due to that dependence.

As another example, Pearl’s theories make use of causal graphs, in which the possible direction of causation is assumed to be known a priori. This implies that we already have a way of identifying causes. Moreover, insofar as those theories assume, in their use of the chain rule for conditional probabilities, that the causality links in the causal graphs are of Markovian type, their application to complex systems is problematic.

Another misconception in some of earlier studies is the aspiration that by using a statistical concept other than the correlation coefficient (e.g. a measure of information) we can detect genuine causality.

Having identified the weaknesses in existing theories and methodologies, we proceeded to develop a new method to study the question whether process X is a potential cause of process Y, or the other way round. This has several key characteristics which distinguish it from existing methods.

• Our framework is for open systems(in particular, geophysical systems), in which:
  • External influences cannot be controlled or excluded.
  • Only a single realization is possible—repeatability of a geophysical process is infeasible.
• Our framework is not formulated on the basis of events, but of stochastic processes. In these:
  • Time runs continuously. It is not a sequence of discrete time instances.
  • There is dependence in time.
• It is understood that only necessary conditions of causality can be investigated using stochastics (or other computational tools and theories)—not sufficient ones. The usefulness of this, less ambitious, objective of seeking necessary conditions lies in their ability:
  • To falsify an assumed causality.
  • To add statistical evidence, in an inductive context, for potential causality and its direction.

The only “hard” requirement kept from previous studies is the temporal precedence of the cause over the effect. Sometimes it can happen that causation goes both ways; for example, hens lay eggs and eggs hatch into hens (and it was Plutarch who first used the metaphor of hen and egg for this problem). Conveniently, we call such systems “potentially hen-or-egg causal”. Our method also identifies these, and also determines in these cases which of the two directions is dominant.

To deal with dependence in time, often manifested in high autocorrelation of the processes, we proposed the differencing of the time series, which substantially decreases the autocorrelation. In other words, instead of investigating the processes X and Y and find spurious results (as has been the case in several earlier studies), we study the changes thereof in time, ΔX and ΔY.

A final prominent characteristic of our method is its simplicity. It uses the data per se, rather than involved transformations thereof such as the cross- and auto-correlation functions or their Fourier transforms —the power spectra and cross-spectra. The results are thus more reliable and easier to interpret.

Atmospheric temperature and CO₂ concentration​

In our PRSA papers we implemented our method in several case studies, such as rainfall-runoff and El Niño-temperature. One of the case studies was CO₂ concentration and temperature, and this one gave strong indications that temperature is potentially the cause and CO₂ the effect, while the opposite causality direction can be excluded as violating the necessary condition of time precedence.

However, the scope of these two papers was to formulate a general methodology for the detection of causality rather than to study a specific system in detail, and the case studies were brief. With regard to the relationship between temperature and CO₂ concentration, we hadn’t gone into details as to the effect of seasonality and time scale, or the exploration of many sources of data. So in our latest paper, published a week ago in Sci (“On hens, eggs, temperatures and CO2: Causal links in Earth’s atmosphere”), we studied the issue in detail. We used CO₂ data from Mauna Loa and from the South Pole, and temperature data from various sources (our published results are for the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis, but in the previous papers we used satellite data too). We used both historical data and the outputs of climatic models. We examined time scales ranging from months to decades.

The results are clear: changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes. On the contrary, temperature change is a potential cause of CO₂ change on all time scales. As we conclude in the paper, “All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO₂] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).”

The math is a bit too complicated to present here. However all three papers have been reviewed extensively by referees and editors (notice in the last paper that four editors were involved as seen on the front page of the paper). The results in the earlier papers were criticized, formally by a commentary in the same journal and informally in blogs and social media. Some concerns expressed by critics, such as about lengths of time series, effect of seasonality, effect of timescale, are dealt with in this new paper. No-one has however developed any critique of the methodology.

 

[Robert W]

And modern man was not around. It’s not germane to any discussion of global warming occurring at a higher rate than at any time MODERN MAN HAS BEEN ON EARTH.

No need to keep repeating your former claims.

 

[Robert W]

Thats hilarious. You really aren’t a serious consumer of real science. Just go to a real climate science website and read how CO2 plays a role in increased global warming RATES.

All I did was repeat back your own claim.